PROXY ADVISORS

RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT

David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan

Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Stanford Graduate School of Business
KEY CONCEPTS

Proxy advisors recommend how investors should vote on proposals included

in the annual proxy. The two largest firms are ISS and Glass, Lewis.

Potential benefits.
Share the cost of analyzing proxy issues across multiple funds.
Provide expertise on issues that funds might not afford to examine individually.

Potential costs.
Proxy advisor guidelines might reflect a one-size-fits-all approach to governance.
Standards might by too inflexible; not allow for differences across firms.
Proxy advisors themselves might not be sufficiently resourced to evaluate all
items, particularly complicated issues.

Research shows that proxy advisors are highly influential over voting outcomes and
pay plan design.
INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Bethel and Gillian (2002) study the impact of ISS recommendations on proxy
proposals.

Sample: 1,374 companies, 1998 voting season.

Find that an unfavorable recommendation from ISS is associated with 13.6%

to 20.6% fewer affirmative votes for management proposals, depending on
the type of proposal.

Conclusion: ISS has significant influence over voting outcomes.

INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Cai, Garner, and Walkling (2009) study the impact of ISS recommendations on
director elections.

Sample: 13,384 director elections at 2,488 shareholder meetings, 2003-2005.

Find that directors that do not receive ISS support receive 19% fewer votes
(77% versus 96%).

Conclusion: ISS has significant influence over director elections.

INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Morgan, Poulsen, and Wolf (2006) examine the impact of ISS

recommendations on compensation-related proposals.

Sample: S&P 500 companies, 1992-2003.

Include proposals for executive and director compensation plans.
Do not include proposals for general employee ownership plans.

Find that an unfavorable recommendation from ISS is associated with a 20%

decrease in shareholder support.

Conclusion: ISS has significant influence over executive compensation votes.

Negative voting recommendations provided by outside voting firms lead to

lower levels of voting support and grow in relative importance over time.
INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Ertimur, Ferri, and Oesch (2013) examine the impact of proxy advisory firm
recommendations on say on pay votes.

Sample: S&P 1500 companies, 2011.

Find that:
A negative recommendation from ISS is associated with a 24.7% reduction in
shareholder support; GL: 12.9% reduction; both ISS & GL: 38.3% reduction.
Influence is not uniform. Large funds are less influenced than small funds.
Causality is uncertain. Reduction in support caused by ISS might be as little as 5.7%.

Conclusion: Proxy advisor influence over say on pay is uncertain.

Our findings suggest that [proxy advisors] key economic role is processing a substantial
amount of executive pay information on behalf of institutional investors, hence reducing
their cost of making informed decisions.
INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Malenko and Shen (2016) also examine the impact of ISS on say on pay.

Sample: Russell 3000 companies, 2010-2011.

Measure the difference in voting outcomes for firms with similar pay plans that
receive different voting recommendations from ISS.

Calculate that a negative recommendation from ISS leads to a 25% reduction

in say-on-pay support.

Conclusion: ISS has significant influence over say on pay voting outcomes.

Our paper shows that the recommendations of proxy advisory

firms are a major factor affecting shareholder votes.
INFLUENCE ON VOTING OUTCOMES

Alexander, Chen, Seppi, and Spatt (2010) study the role of ISS
recommendations in proxy contests.

Sample: 198 proxy contests, 1992-2005.

ISS recommendations: 55% for management nominations; 45% dissidents.

Find that ISS recommendations for dissidents:

Increase the probability of dissident victory by 14% to 30%.
Are associated with 3.8% 9-day positive, abnormal returns.
Predict outcomes and provide relevant information to improve decision making.

Conclusion: Proxy advisory firms provide valuable market information.

Proxy advice may facilitate informed proxy voting.

INFLUENCE ON COMPENSATION DESIGN

Gow, Larcker, McCall, and Tayan (2013) study the influence of ISS on equity
compensation plan design.

Sample: 4,230 equity plans, 2004-2010.

Companies design plans to closely meet ISS allowable limits for dilution.
34.1% of all plans are within 1% of ISS limits.
96% of these are <1% below;
only 4% are <1% above.

ISS has significant influence

over equity plan design.

These figures suggest that companies

are acquiring their allowable cap figure
from ISS and designing their equity
plans to fall just below this number.
INFLUENCE ON COMPENSATION DESIGN

Larcker, McCall, and Ormazabal (2013) examine the impact of ISS guidelines
on stock option repricing plans.

Sample: 264 repricing plans, 2004-2009.

Find that:
Plans that require shareholder approval are significantly more likely to conform to
ISS criteria than those that do not require approval.
Plans that meet ISS criteria exhibit lower stock market reaction, lower future
operating performance, and higher employee turnover.

Conclusion: ISS has significant influence over the design of repricing plans,
and this influence is negative.

These results are consistent with the conclusion that proxy advisory
firm recommendations are not value increasing for shareholders.
INFLUENCE ON COMPENSATION DESIGN

Larcker, McCall, and Ormazabal (2015) examine the impact of proxy advisory
firm recommendations on say on pay.

Sample: 2,008 companies, 2011.

Find that:
Companies whose plans are likely to receive a negative recommendation are
significantly more likely to amend their plan to gain the approval of ISS and GL.
Shareholders react negatively to these changes.

Conclusion: Proxy advisory firms have significant influence over the design of
pay plans, and this influence is negative.

[The influence of] proxy advisory firms appears to have the unintended economic consequence
that boards of directors are induced to make choices that decrease shareholder value.
CONCLUSION

Research generally shows that proxy advisory firms are highly influential
over voting outcomes.

Determining the degree of causality is difficult. It is not always clear how

much of a decline in support is due to a negative recommendation and
how much is due to poor governance.

Still, most research finds that ISS and Glass Lewis can swing up to 20% of
the vote, depending on the matter of the proposal.

Research also shows that proxy advisors have significant influence over pay
design. Shareholders generally react negatively to changes made to satisfy
proxy advisors.

As such, it is not clear that the recommendations of proxy advisors are

value increasing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jennifer E. Bethel and Stuart L. Gillan. The Impact of the Institutional and Regulatory Environment on Shareholder Voting. Financial
Management. 2002.

Jie Cai, Jacqueline L. Garner, and Ralph A. Walkling. Journal of Finance. 2009.

Angela Morgan, Annette Poulsen, and Jack Wolf. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2006.

Yonca Ertimur, Fabrizio Ferri, and David Oesch. Shareholder Votes and Proxy Advisors: Evidence from Say on Pay. Journal of
Accounting Research. 2013.

Nadya Malenko and Yao Shen. The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design. Review of
Financial Studies. 2016.

Ian D. Gow, David F. Larcker, Allan L. McCall, and Brian Tayan. Sneak Preview: How ISS Dictates Equity Plan Design. Stanford Closer
Look Series. 2013.

David F. Larcker, Allan L. McCall, and Gaizka Ormazabal. Proxy Advisory Firms and Stock Option Repricing. Journal of Accounting
and Economics. 2013.

David F. Larcker, Allan L. McCall, and Gaizka Ormazabal. Outsourcing Shareholder Voting to Proxy Advisory Firms. Journal of Law
and Economics. 2015.

Cindy R. Alexander, Mark A. Chen, Duane J. Seppi, and Chester S. Spatt. Interim News and the Role of Proxy Voting Advise. Review of
Financial Studies. 2010.